JoMac

Yeah, I wouldn't uninstall due to this 'Close Assault' issue that some of us have, and should try enjoying all Modules patched for full enjoyment...Using the nerfing down technique of Infantry, however, will help eleviate some of that 'Armor Blindness', and give Armor alittle better chance of survival. Keep in mind thou, unsupported Heavier Armor ( Tanks, Assaults Guns, etc ) will still be vulnerable, but overall have alittle better chance of survival...I'm by no means an Armor person ( thou, they are fun to play with ), but prefer Inf or Combined Arms Scenarios. Yes, it would be nice if there were some sort of seperate 'Close Assault' Order option for Infantry against Armor with a Such & Such chance of a KO the longer an Inf Unit stays in same or adjacent AS...But, not the way it is now. Anyways, Skwabie, let me know how it goes, and PM back your results as time goes by so we can fine-tune anything thats needs it...My goal is to make CM as realistic as we can make it for those that are interested.

Skwabie, This is what I do to help give me the desired effects im looking for. Go into the Scenario Editor and make some changes to a Scenario. If playing against an Opponent, then ask him to do the same ( this approach will also give alittle extra for purchasing units ). Infantry: - Inf Moral should always be either Conscripts ( if they are Green or Reg in Scenario ), or Green ( if they are Vet or better ), Give +1 Bonus to HQ's for Leadership or if good quality specialized Inf ( Airborne-Ranger, etc ), Give Inf in Defense Low Motivation and troops attacking Normal Motivation, All Inf should always be in Weakened status. Armor: You can also increase the Armor's Moral up a notch, and give similar bonuses if the above doesn't give you the desired effects. At the very least, experiment with the Infantry alterations first, then the Armor if need be. Reducing the effects of Infantry by making them alittle more brittle, and or increasing the effects of Armor make for what I think a better work-around approach to the Inf vs. Armor 'Close Assault' syndrome.

My guess is that he is giving very short way-points ( which appears under the vehicle ) and not noticable to the player. This will in affect make the Vehicle appear to be slowely turning in circules. Try using slightly bigger way-points that are noticable out from under the Vehicle, say 5 meters minimum. This may require you to look Top-Down on the Battlefield to better see it. I tend to make short way-points anywhere from 5-10 meters apart. Joe

Aquatica, I think you should pick-up a copy of CMAK from either Battlefront, or possibly cheaper on Fleabay ( ebay ) or Amazon. It will give you a good basic protrayal of SA Units ( Uniforms, Voices, Scenarios, etc ), and the game can be added as part of your research portfolio. Joe

You got that right , Skwabie...If CMSF doesn't have an effective 'Close Assault' mechanism, then the WWII titles shouldn't have it either, and even more so.

Yeah, just have the Brits run out of Town and throw a few Nades against German Armor, and game over...Conscript Brits save the day against Whitmann's Vets. Joe

Cuirassier, It should actually be this below in your situation: 1. Base Game 2. 1.11 patch 3. 2.0 upgrade 4. 2.12 patch 5. 3.0 upgrade 6. 3.11 patch Joe

If your Opponent also doesn't click the 'Cease-Fire' ( which he doesn't have to ), then the only other option is to click 'Surrender' as it will show both sides the AAR. Joe

A decent chance is one thing, but this happens on a near constant basis. Having Inf supporting Armor is irrelevant to this thread and another matter altogether. I don't mind the abstraction, if done right...It would be better to have a Unit spend a couple/few turns within Close Assault Range getting ready in order to be affective ( akin to setting-up Heavy Weapons ). However, just having Armor & Inf bump into each other and having the Inf Auto Nade ( auto Close-Assault ) is still ridiculous. So now, you don't need Engineers when you have plain jane Inf taking out Armor willy-nilly...Why, because Engineers take to long to take out Armor, you know, like it's suppose to. It's simply to easy to Split a Squad and have each Team hunt down Armor. There is a reason why those other games make it hard to Disable/KO Armor with Inf, because it was...I still think CMx1 had it right.

Yeah, and been having this problem ever since v2.0. It seems just a few Inf with hand grenades can take out a Tank on a regular basis with no problem. BF said they fixed the problem in previous patches since then, but I don't see it, and neither do many others. Other people say that throwing Hand Grenades represent Inf Close Assaulting a Tank, but I think it's way overmoddled and simply ridiculous. It got to the point where in every Battle I played in an Inf Platoon would easily run around the Battlefield and hunt down a Tank Platoon and take it out in short order. In one Battle, an Inf Squad throw a Mortar Barrage worth of Nades within 10 secs when a Tank approached within 25 meters of them. Joe

Yeah, most .50 on Shermans are still mounted in the AA position by Normandy, and then used in the forward mount later after the Break-Out ( Oct onwards ) when it became apparent there was no Luftwaffe...So, CM is giving the Sherman alittle to much of an advantage at this point. It would've been better to have 1-2 out of 5 Shermans mounted in the Forward position representing field modifications or the gradual change over...Ofcourse, this would've require additional coding. Joe

Oh, in that case CM definately needs to dial-up the "Save Rolls' even more so...

Myself and few others have mentioned this in previous posts in that Automatics ( and maybe small arms in general ) seem abit overmoddled, or the way the system models the use of them. Troops in Column formation has something to do with the above. This may be part of the issue, and having other formations included in future may help. Ok, CM models the Trajectory of each Bullet/Shell. What I want to know is if CM models how actual individual troop dispositions are within the AS ( and I don't just mean their posture )...ex, Does CM give Savings Rolls ( like I hear is done for HE ) to Small Arms to compinsate for things like; Troops sensing danger, getting shot and zig-zag alittle, going to ground and micro-managing cover, etc, etc. I remember Jason C bringing-up an idea to exclude every other shot fired from Automatics to reflect some of this. So, we now we already have Aim, Trajectory, Posture, & Suppression all determing Small Arms Hits...by adding a Savings Rolls (50/50 ?) for this micro-managing aspect, then it will atleast help better reflect RL Casualties.

hedgwich, Even thou CMx1 gives you better overall RL casualties rates at Battles End...CMx2 does it better on a turn by turn basis. CMx1 uses Small Arms & HE Firepower Values to determine Casualty & Moral hits against enemy (akin to ASL type Board Games ), while CMx2 uses RL Bullet/Shell Trajectories to determing Caualties & Moral hits. When playing CMx1, try using the 'Advance' as your main movement order when you know or think you will engage enemy troops ( or use 'Run' order at beginning of game for a couple turns when you know there is no enemy engagement ), use 'Move' Order ( not Run, or you will tire to fast ) for slow moving units like HMG's. MG's ( lesser extent Arty ) are less potent in CMx1 ( then in CMx2 ) and so need to alter your Tactics accordingly ( using or defending against them ). Joe

Pak40, If you still have the game file available ( if not, no big deal as I can run a similar later this week ) can you run the Test again but with Sniper Team @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & Normal Motivation ) and Firing & Advancing Airborne @ Green ( w/+1 Leadership & High Motivation )...I'm also going to run identical test, but having enemy using an LMG Team instead of a Sharp Team. I'm curious what the test results would be if using Green Troops vs. Vet, and having the Attacker always having High and Defender having Normal Motivations. I've been play testing ( and changing variables like Motivation & Leadership ) and only using Conscript or Green troops ( Conscript for RL Conscript & Green troops, and Green for RL Regular or Vet troops ) when playing QB's\ Scenario's as I'm trying to better Simulate RL Casualties under same Battle Conditions.

WOW ! in one test the Sharp hits a Moving Target 90% of the Time causing several Causalties, and another test having an MP40 causing 3 Casualties, and even more so due to Grenades...Now, I do believe Small Arms is overmoddled abit...Sigh :-( That Squad ( IRL ) should have been able to get within Assault range ( losing 1-2 Casualties at most ) and able to take out both members of that Sharp Team. Joe

Ehh, It was only a Platoon from each Company from the SS Battalion in action. Joe

Yes, and the overmoddling of SMG\Auto Rifles in CM still makes them far to deadly. Joe

..."Do You Want To Play A Game"...

Red Manace, you have PM... Joe

No, its right...Junior Commissioned Officers ( 1st-2nd Lt's ) have single Bar, and Senior Commissioned Officers ( Capt'-Batt ) have dual Bars. Joe

Ofcourse, both sides knew that one side or the other would eventually have to attack first...Both are the two power houses in Europe. USSR wanted to attack Germany, but simply wasn't ready until probably Spring 42' or later. For Germany, it was a good thing to attack first with Operation Barbarossa, or they would have been knocked-out of war sooner...Germany simply had no choice but to attack, and was more prepared first for it ( or rather, as prepared as they will ever be, since they weren't in full-time War Production yet ). Joe

OH, Master AndersonofKip, we thank you for that informative explanation. Joe

I remember having this happen once or three times in the past...a pixeltruppen would run back and forth between Action Spots, and tie-up the Squads Movement. Joe

I agree, that firing into every building makes no sense, especially in Villages or Towns, as you don't have the time or will end-up running out of ammo. Unfortunately, with the Game Mechanics of CM you almost have to fire on every building before entering, or face dire consequences.